Failing to Adapt and Adjust to a Changing Ecosystem

Failing to Adapt and Adjust to a Changing Ecosystem

        British Columbia’s total land mass is 95 million hectares, and forests make up 55 million hectares. However, just under half of these forests, at 22 million hectares, are suitable for timber production and harvesting. Forestry plays a large role in our economic, social, and environmental well-being here in B.C., and B.C. understands their importance as B.C. was ranked as a global leader in sustainable forest management in a third-party consultation (Sustainable Forest Management). However, there are still many great threats that harm our forests’ sustainability. BC’s forest mismanagement stems from an inadequate plan that fails to account for long-term objectives in both the government and private sector, and this has resulted in a lethargic response and adjustments to variables like climate change that have dramatically altered the ecosystem.

The Mountain Pine Beetle is a pest that plays an important role in natural forest regeneration, but its impact was devastatingly amplified due to warmer climates. Typically, the pest helps to spread seeds of new trees while simultaneously killing off old and weak trees. This process can be beneficial to the ecosystem, and part of appropriate forest management understanding that external damage from natural causes like fire or pests is natural, and unavoidable. However, what made the Mountain Pine Beetle outbreak so different and dangerous is that its infestation lifecycle in B.C. was prolonged due to warm winters (“Mountain Pine Beetle”). Beetles were hatching earlier, and living longer which lead to over 53% of merchantable pine killed by 2012. In addition, “modeling projections indicated about 57% of B.C.’s pine volume will be killed by 2021” (“Mountain Pine Beetle Projections”). The only way to truly effectively kill the Pine Beetle is through cold winters below -40C, but the model only accounted for the infestation remain the same, despite future temperatures trending upwards. In addition, because the beetle kills trees, it turned the B.C. forests from a carbon source to a carbon sink. This only compounds the problem, as the beetles themselves maybe raising the temperatures due to increased levels of greenhouse gas. The beetles lead to a serious deforestation problem that rapidly destroys harvestable lumber, and as a result, impacts the resilience of the ecosystem. This is a serious threat because large infestations cannot be handled in a cost-effective manner. The beetle has destroyed 18.1 million hectares since 1990, and the only way to kill off the beetle and retain our forests is to hope for harsh winter weather (“Mountain Pine Beetle”).

        What is within human control is the government’s response to the changing variables of the ecosystem, but they have not done an adequate job in establishing a sound plan with defined timber objective and outcomes. This is alarming as the government makes the reforestation decisions for 89% of British Columbia’s forests (Doyle, 2012). Legally, the government does not need to reforest any areas that have been damaged by natural causes. This includes the Mountain Pine beetle, and as a result, the government only replanted 8,730 hectares a year – “despite a plan [by the Forests for Tomorrow program] calling for planting of 22,000 hectares a year.” In addition, the allowable annual cut in 2012 was raised to 78.6 million cubic metres, as a method to harvest “mountain pine beetle damaged wood, before it becomes unmerchantable”. The beetle has caused a massive reduction in annual cut, and the ministry has projected that it be no higher than 65 million cubic meters until at least 2110 (Doyle, 2012). Clearly, there is a shortage caused by the Mountain Pine beetle, and the outbreak cannot be faulted due to government inadequacy. While the government is not legally bound to act, they do have the responsibility to act in the public interest. Currently, the replenishment strategy being utilized is ineffective, as it is based off inaccurate data and lacks accountability. The plan does not adequately demonstrate how outcomes will bet met, as their have been no clear outcomes set. Success must be defined and balanced through several criteria, such as environmental, social, and economic objectives. Without a definition, a great ambiguity exists. For instance, it is unclear if the government is trying to achieve a greater volume or species diversity, or even a combination of several factors. Setting clear objectives for forest management and silviculture investment is key to ensuring that we do not overwork our forests in the present to ensure they can serve us in the future. At the moment, the ministry has not provided performance measures with the “level of detail needed to assess results and trends” (Doyle, 2012) . What is most alarming, is that the initial data set of attributes of “forest inventory, natural disturbances, and replant data” have proven to be inaccurate because they were extrapolated from a small sample size of land surveying (Doyle, 2012). These factors allow the government to project forest growth and yield, which is then used to help define timber productivity. What is most alarming is that this plan cannot be sound, as the very foundation it has been built upon has been monitored and recorded inadequately. In order to maintain the long-term objectives of our forests, the government must first define success, better understand their progress by setting a frame of reference, and ensure that our key performance indicators accurately measure success.